www.denverpost.com:New York's Theatre Communications Group filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday asking it to rule in favor of a consortium of three Colorado theater companies that smoking within the context of a theatrical production is a First Amendment right of free expression
Curious Theater, Paragon Theatre and the now defunct Theatre 13 have engaged in an ongoing, four-year legal battle to win an exemption from Colorado's statewide indoor smoking ban that would allow smoking during theatrical performances.
The theater companies have lost in every step of the legal process to date. So on Dec. 31, Curious Theatre producing artistic director Chip Walton announced he would petition the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to smoke non-tobacco products in theatrical productions. Via Stage Directions
7 comments:
I'm interested to see how this case pans out. It seems like an important issue, not only for theatre, but also as (afaik) the first supreme court test on the expansiveness of these smoking bans. I'm not a big fan of the bans to start, but given that they exist, it seems like some reasonable bounds would be good. As a rule, I'm a bit skeptical of cases that turn everything into a first amendment issue - I fear that it abuses and weakens the protection - but this seems like a good use of it, a case that actually is about art and speech.
I'm surprised that this issue got so high up so quickly. The Supreme Court tends to rule in favor of freedom of speech rather than restricting it, so I'm predicting that there might be some repeals of the smoking bans in theater. Or at least there is going to be some complicated rules to follow if you want to have anyone smoking on stage. It seems like that will keep people from smoking onstage just by itself.
It's interesting how much this means to theatrical companies. A lot of places will just remove the smoking scenes all together, but others will take the fines and risk than change the necessities of the text. I don't know how much "weight" we can really throw since we're so small compared to other facets of the entertainment industry, but I think it may be worth the fight to be able to give these companies the expression that they feel they need. There seem to be a lot of loopholes in a lot of states and municipalities that allow you to smoke on stage, so I wonder what really led this to be such a serious bout about the first amendment. I don't know that I would agree that it's restricting freedom of expression because there are health issues involved.
This ongoing fight over whether theaters should/shouldn't be allowed to have cigarettes on stage has reached the point where it just seems like a giant waste of everyone involved's time. To this day, I do not understand why theater has not just swapped to herbal cigarettes to avoid the whole "second hand smoke" argument that everyone seems to throw around. There are just too many alternative options that have minor draw backs to really continue this whole fight over whether or not cigarettes should be allowed on stage.
I really wish that smoking non-tobacco products should be allowed in theatre. I think that certain shows need the element of smoking to stay in the production because it adds so much to the meaning of the scene and how we visually interpret the setting and interaction between characters. If this was faked, it would reduce the genuine quality of the production.
I find the effort going into this fight very puzzling, considering when you compare the weight of the battle to the possible gain, it really doesn't add up in my opinion. You don't just file a brief to the Supreme Court, it's really expensive and really time consuming, and a huge deal. How important is smoking on stage that producers want to endure a court case? With the money these theaters already have (IE, not much) they actually want to pay all the dues going towards flights, lawyers, etc? It seems so utterly pointless, also because the Supreme Court does not tend to rule in favor of the arts, even if it typically rules in favor of the first amendment. They will have to prove that smoking is a form of expression that bears artistic merit (which is by no means simple). You also have to look at the justices, and my prediction is that it will be a 5 to 4 vote. At least four justices will most likely favor the theaters, but they need one of the moderates to swing. Then again, predicting first amendment opinions is difficult, considering it can go so many ways, so I really have no idea, it's just a guess.
It's really interesting that a case like this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. I think it seems reasonable to that theaters should want to have an exception made for smoking for shows and such. I do hope that the court rules in favor of the theater. There are certain aspects of smoking in scenes that are important, so it'd be easier if people were simply allowed to use non-tobacco cigarettes, and hopefully the court will see that.
Post a Comment